Journal Bill Dog's Journal: why is multiple marriages criminalized 33
First, loosely the definitions I'm operating from:
Bigamy - While married, engaging in additional marriages without these other parties' knowledge and consent.
Polygamy - While married, engaging in additional marriages with these other parties' knowledge and consent.
So I think it was over the weekend I was flipping thru and came upon some show on TLC or some channel like that, on some dude with three wives and umpteen children who all live together in some big house. Huge kitchen space and I guess most of the rooms shared, but they said he spends each night in a different bedroom, on rotation, and only with one wife at a time. And they all looked to be his age (maybe late 30's), so no pervert marries underage girls thing.
At the time I'm thinking, well, if everyone is on board with it, they can live their lives as they choose. I think he's either the sole or majority breadwinner (some marketing guy), so there's always a mommy or three at home for the kids. (And they don't need to hire babysitters, for when he takes them out on their individual dates.) The kids have a dad, a mom that's always home, lots of siblings to grow up with and play with, it's just a little freaky, but whatever.
The only thing that I really thought didn't smell right was he said he doesn't share with the people in his worklife what his "lifestyle choice" at home is, because they'd be intolerant and wouldn't understand. So of course, why did this guy agree to be featured in a show on national TV about it then.
So I'm flipping thru today, and it's either CNN or FNC that's doing a short blurb on how the cops have caught wind of the show and now they're looking at prosecuting him. Why?!?
The news piece said he's not really married to all three of them, just one (I gathered that he and his original were high school sweethearts). So even tho he calls them all his "wives", legally he's just shacking up with a couple extra women and whose ever kids they are.
So it doesn't seem like he's in violation of the letter of the law, only the spirit of the law. But I also don't get how there's a basis for that spirit of the law.
He's not taking on secret wives, and cheating other women in the sense that they believe that they're a party to a monogamous relationship. I've heard of the occasional guy that does this, prolly mostly with wealthy women, because what he's really after* is money and not "love". And that's defrauding a party to a contract, so I can see why the state should insert itself here, towards protecting people from unknowingly falling victim to such a scheme. I.e. bigamy *should* be illegal.
But why polygamy? I'm not Mormon and never have been and don't know and have never known anyone who practices or wants to have multiple wives, and it's not my cup of tea. (The emotional/hormonal nature of women in general means one is usually plenty to handle, for a guy. I think I'd only be interested in multiple spouses if I was gay, as extra men in the house would just be like college roommates (minus the shared girl-watching hobby and commenting, that is!).)
But if these four adults entered into a contract and living arrangement, under no duress and of sound state of mind, where the children are in no jeopardy (well except for growing up to be weirdos like their parents, but then if that's a valid excuse for the state to step in, then we should have govt.-mandated sterilization of all Liberals, esp. the freaks in my state of California), then what right does the state have in interfering?
Let alone a valid interest. I'm sympathetic to notion of certain non-traditional family arrangements maybe not being the best for children, if there's a lack of having both gender-inspired parental roles present. E.g. single moms raise kids who often don't benefit from a father figure around. I think ideally kids need both the "aw you poor thing did you get an owie?" and "walk it off, weakling!" cultures, as one prolly matures into a happier and more functional person having learned both empathy and toughness. But how is having redundant backups at the family unit's disposal a bad thing? Should grandma be banned from moving in as well? Live-in nannies outlawed?
Or is it about the sex? I.e. does govt. say it's okay that grandma goes to live with the family of one of her children, because no one's boinking her? I sure hope it's not about regulating our sex lives. I detest "social engineering".
It must be about the dishing out of govt. goodies/benefits. (I.e. more social engineering.) As in maybe things are only set up to have a single designee as the official recipient at any given time of rights to one's property etc. This should prolly change. In the life ins. benefits that previous employers have provided, I could split it between beneficiaries and across conditional tiers. I don't have a will (and I should), but presumably you can set up where your junk goes and to which person in what order, so how is it that the state is allowed to make me pick only one for certain other of my own fscking personal affairs.
p.s. I've never been married, or divorced, so don't really know that much about it, but why do you have to go to a judge and beg for permission just to get divorced?!? Why the hell would I care what some pompous ass in a robe thinks about this? It's my life. I don't have to get daddy govt.'s permission to leave my job. Or break off other relationships.
I guess I vaguely recall hearing about "no-fault divorce", which seems like as it should be -- the contract has been ended or breached, depending on how you look at it, so just dissolve the related affairs in a legally-governed and equitable manner.
p.s.s. Which brings another question to mind: Why does it have to be "until death do us part"? You don't enter into a contract *for life* in any other area. (Well, except for something like the keeping of govt. secrets. But that's not really an imposition on your life.) Why can't I enter into a legal union with someone, under the terms "until such time as one party desires to discontinue the relationship"?
My parents had, before they retired, engaged in a couple of business relationships with another other couple, each -- buying a house together and then renting it out and sharing the responsibilities. They always had a clause in the contract that the relationship could be dissolved if even one of the four parties involved wanted out. I.e. geared towards protecting the individual, and not the relationship, or the society, or the tax base, or whatever.
*Forgot about this so inserting it as a footnote: Something one of the "wives" said struck me. For a long while now I've had the suspicion that in general men need women a lot more than vice-versa, and that it's often the case that women don't take on a man because they want a man, but because they want a family. So they'll settle for someone who's "okay", such as when it's the desired time for the woman to begin seriously thinking about starting a family, figuring that after the first child comes she'll be devoting almost all her time to the kids and then it won't really matter how enamored or unenamored she is of her husband.
I don't know to what degree or how prevalent that is (and it may be a good thing in that it might be the only chance for some guys!), but one of these women reinforced that, saying that she wouldn't want a husband all of her own. Which sounds strange in that way that she put it. But I think that's genuinely how she thought of it. She wanted a guy for his sperm, maybe minimal conjugal visits in return, but beyond that to be held at arms length.
As if guys would be too much trouble if not for their seed. If we weren't the only go-to people around to fulfill their lifelong dreams of the fabulous wedding and precious babies, we'd prolly be enslaved, rather than like now, kept around as pets!
Welcome to Social Liberalism (Score:2)
Title says it all. There's nothing really wrong with what's going on, and the only reason is social engineering.
Christianity has held that the only valid marriage is a singular marriage (even though the OT is full of polygamy, and mistresses) and that marriage is eternal and forever. Namely, "man will leave his family, and become one flesh with his wife". You can't have more than one wife in that equation... it is two people, a man and a woman coming together. Anything else is rejected.
So, you answered
Re: (Score:1)
And in still a violation of marriage contract in most if not all states.
And that's because implied in the contract is exclusivity of sexual (and I would say other kinds as well) intimacy. And that's fine for people who want that in their agreement. But it should be removed from the realm of implicit -- I can't think of at the moment any good defaults that govt. should just assume and take as implied in any given contract. People should be able to tailor an agreement to whatever suits them, and it not having
Re: (Score:2)
And in still a violation of marriage contract in most if not all states.
And that's because implied in the contract is exclusivity of sexual (and I would say other kinds as well) intimacy. And that's fine for people who want that in their agreement. But it should be removed from the realm of implicit -- I can't think of at the moment any good defaults that govt. should just assume and take as implied in any given contract. People should be able to tailor an agreement to whatever suits them, and it not having to be based on a framework of what some wannabe social architects think is "for the greater good", or best for the society (at the expense of the individual). I'm so sick of that angle, because even meant well (such as by the Religious Right in this case), it's ultimately too dangerous a precedent.
So, let's recognize gay marriages to be equal to regular marriage, legalize drugs, get rid of sin taxes on alcohol, and cigarettes, and any other liberal social agenda that I can think of...
Libertarians I can deal with, because arguing over economic policies is one of dispassionate issues, where valid arguments can be made, and conservative cost control is a necessary and welcomed check upon the people like me who are too generous to really manage a government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, let's recognize gay marriages to be equal to regular marriage, legalize drugs, get rid of sin taxes on alcohol, and cigarettes, and any other liberal social agenda that I can think of...
While the two former are liberal, the two latter are not. Liberals want gay marriage and drug legalization, but do NOT want to end sin taxes. Also, an increasing number of conservatives want drug legalization (well, pot, anyway).
Also, it should be pointed out that in fact, some states do have laws against not just the legal fact of polygamy -- actual multiple marriage contracts -- but acting like you're married to more than one person. Totally serious.
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting caught up in this single axis liberal-conservative range.
Social liberalism is different from Economic liberalism.
You're also making a vast sweeping generalization saying that liberals don't want to end sin taxes. I'm a liberal, and I want to end sin taxes. So what the fuck? You're the arbiter of what liberals actually believe? Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting caught up in this single axis liberal-conservative range.
No, I'm not.
Social liberalism is different from Economic liberalism.
Correct.
You're also making a vast sweeping generalization saying that liberals don't want to end sin taxes.
Correct. Vast, sweeping, and very accurate.
I'm a liberal, and I want to end sin taxes. So what the fuck? You're the arbiter of what liberals actually believe? Huh?
No, just an observer of facts like "we only have sin taxes because qn overwhelming majority of social liberals support them.". Indeed, no other group BUT social liberals support them. If not for the support of social liberals, such taxes would not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just an observer of facts like "we only have sin taxes because qn overwhelming majority of social liberals support them.". Indeed, no other group BUT social liberals support them. If not for the support of social liberals, such taxes would not exist.
WTF? What reality are you living in? Sin taxes are used as a coercive way to get people to stop using something that we feel is bad for them. The original "Sin Tax" was on alcohol, and pressured by the PROHIBITIONISTS, which were devout Christians, and reactionaries.
The taxing of marijuana out of legality was spearheaded by reactionaries. The taxes on cigarettes the same.
Social liberals think that we should be free to do whatever we want socially, and that the government should interfere as little as pos
Re: (Score:2)
Sin taxes are used as a coercive way to get people to stop using something that we feel is bad for them.
Exactly. This is what social liberals do, and no one else.
The original "Sin Tax" was on alcohol, and pressured by the PROHIBITIONISTS
Exactly, who were social liberals. You're the one ignoring reality, here. The modern evangelical movement got its roots in the mid 19th century, and the political causes they championed primarily with women's rights, abolition, and prohibition. They were motivated mostly by their religious belief, but eventually this pseudo-movement became more generally irreligious, and was championed by academics and philosophers like Holmes, Woodrow Wilson, Su
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who wants to, for example, make homosexuality (not marriage, which is a far more complex issue) illegal, is a traditional social liberal, just like the prohibitionists of a century ago, and the sin-taxers of today.
WTF?! Ok, we're going to get some equivocation going on here, because "liberal" has a lot of different meanings.
In the following paragraph, "liberal" refers to the idea of granting liberty, not to liberal politics.
Since when has prohibition been a part of liberty? "You can't do this" is not a liberal position. Prohibition is a NON liberal policy.
There are two forms of people seeking social AUTHORITARIANISM... Those who are current conservatives of America, and those who like Communists do not think that
Re: (Score:1)
In the following paragraph, "liberal" refers to the idea of granting liberty, not to liberal politics.
You're right that "liberal" has more than one meaning (which is why I've adopted the convention of capitalizing the non-generic kind), so you may wish to consider instead using the term "libertarian" (lower-case ell) instead of "liberal" when you're referring to the idea of not standing in the way of liberty (there is no "granting" of liberty -- that's the Liberal way of looking at it), so that there's no c
Re: (Score:2)
Hi dummy,
You are using "social liberal" to mean what almost everyone else uses "classical liberal" to mean. Your problem, not mine. Learn to use the language. I am not labellimg what I dont like; I am using terms as they are normally used. You clearly lack basic understanding. Everyone, other than you, who calls themselves a "social liberal" uses the term to refer to what you say you hate. You're the asshole here .... as usual.
Oh, and you're completely full of shit when you say current conservatives of Am
Re: (Score:2)
So for example I've gathered that you see yourself as economically socialist and socially libertarian? If that is the case, then if I were you I wouldn't tell people that socially you're a liberal, because if someone told me that, in the absence of disambiguation of that ell word, it would mean to me that that person was highly controlling and authoritarian on social issues.
I tell people that I'm a socialist, which is economically "authoritarian", and socially "libertarian".
The problem with using the term "libertarian" is that one is then loading that term as well, because libertarian is a term used to refer to people who are for both social and economic liberty.
A big problem with the term "liberal" in America is that is refers to a centrist-right position, in the same region as the economic liberty, social authoritarianism advocated by the republican party. So, even the most
Re: (Score:2)
Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for the state in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism [wikipedia.org]
Fuck off and die, I'm right, you're wrong.
What I'm referring to does not match up with "classic liberalism", which believes in a free and unrestrained market.
When I tried to tell Bill Dog that he is a liberal in the social axis, I'm telling him that he thinks that individuals should have freedom, and I was attempting to say NOTHING about his economic beliefs.
TWO axes... social and economic restraint over the individual. One side authoritarian and the other lib
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I'm right, you're wrong.
Incorrect. And what's more, you provide no evidence defending your claims. Oddly, you link to a Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] which completely disagrees with you, noting (for example) that social liberalism were a large part of the New Deal and other authoritarian, anti-liberty, policies.
What I'm referring to does not match up with "classic liberalism"
Yes, it does.
which believes in a free and unrestrained market.
No, it doesn't. LARGELY unrestrained, yes, but not totally. And further, a classical-liberal belief in free markets goes hand in hand with a belief in government nonintervention in our personal lives. They are one in the
Re: (Score:1)
So, let's recognize gay marriages to be equal to regular marriage
It might be a difference without a distinction to you, but to a religious person, "marriage" has an inherent religious connotation. For example in the church that I grew up in it is a "holy sacrament", like Baptism and the Lord's Supper. And since, as you must know, conservative Christians are (and are going to stay) convinced that homosexual relations is a sin, we can never recognize any alternative relationship (of any kind) as "marriage".
So
Re: (Score:2)
I will grant you that marriage has a number of religious baggage. However, as Jesus pointed out, your kingdom is not here, it is in Heaven. And Jesus himself pointed out saying "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" there is a secular world, and religious world.
Your religion need not recognize anything that it does not want to. That however does not mean that the secular world need refuse to recognize something.
You're so tied up in this "but the word 'marriage' has special meaning to us" Guess what? There
Re: (Score:1)
I have no confusion that this is the Devil's world, and I'm not deluded into any such folly that mankind can set up a successful theocracy here, so you don't need to worry about that coming from me at least. But I disagree on Constitutional terms with your implication that marriage is "Caesar's" -- the legal implications are the govt.'s business, the religious implications are religion's business, and for all other facets of it, both can bugger off.
Re: (Score:2)
the legal implications are the govt.'s business, the religious implications are religion's business, and for all other facets of it, both can bugger off.
Very well, I clarify. The legal aspects of "marriage" are "Caesar's" and Christians shouldn't interfere. The religious aspects of marriage however are a matter for the religion of those who are married.
There is no reason why any church should have to recognize a marriage between a black and white person. They also have every right to declare their members to be in whatever noncompliance with their religious law that they want. In fact, private jurisdictions of law have consistently been upheld (as they
Re: (Score:2)
So, take your argument, and remove any children, and then ask yourself... why is the government preventing gays from getting married?
Why should the government be involved in a gay "marriage" at all? Why do gays need the Government to validate their relationship?
Next Question: Why is it a Federal Issue? Marriage Licenses are issued at the state level, not the federal level.
If government shouldn't need to be involved in a gay "marriage", then why should government be involved in marriage at all?
There are certain parts of a contract that are binding upon OTHER parties... like access in a hospital, automatic default of intestate estates, and a few other things.
To answer the next question: the Federal government does defer to the states for most marriages, really just gay marriage is singled out as something that the Federal government can deny as a marriage, all other marriages
Re: (Score:2)
It is. Marriage is, quite simply, not a federal issue.
"Marriage" isn't a government issue at all.
Contracts are a government issue. Marriage is a specific instance of a domestic household contract.
The government should allow households of any nature to enter into an agreement I would term a "household corporation" regardless of the gender or possible sexual activity (ore lack thereof) of the participants.
Yes, that would allow gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Yes, that would allow a brother an
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just read the first line if my post and then ignore the rest of it? You know, the part where I mentioned "household corporation"?
Re: (Score:1)
Why should biology or geneological lineage even be implied in any agreement? I can't see a good reason why govt. shouldn't be neutral on *all* dimensions when it comes to contracts. Here's a position the Left will like: How about if you fail to specify who gets your goodies when you croak, the govt. gets it? I.e. in a sense the wealth is absorbed back into the society. There should be no defaults or other implied assumptions in contracts, make everything explicit, that's the only way to make it fair for eve
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a position the Left will like: How about if you fail to specify who gets your goodies when you croak, the govt. gets it?
"The Left" doesn't believe that everything should go back to the state. First, there are a large variety of positions about this stuff on the left. There are quite some proper examples of when people should gain direct benefit in a capitalist or free market environment. As an example, there is simply no way to assign value to art and entertainment beyond the free market.
Now, all of this said, see the legal concept of "Escheat"... it is the condition where someone dies intestate (no will or testament), an
Re: (Score:1)
"The Left" doesn't believe that everything should go back to the state. First, there are a large variety of positions about this stuff on the left.
That I highly doubt. My understanding is that it's a Leftist outlook that some people have "benefitted from life's lottery", and that it's a Leftist value that this is unfair (hence redistribution is proscribed). Inheritance is certainly then a case that would be generally perceived on the Left as being *especially* unfair (hence the support for a "death tax"), s
Re: (Score:2)
You're taking a Leftist position to the absurd position...
Yes, inheritance is a way for someone to win the "life's lottery", however there really is nothing that can be done about some people being lucky enough to win lottery type things.
The interest in the Left is to ensure that people who have NOT won the lottery are not unfairly disadvantaged just because they did not. Thus, education should be provided at an affordable cost, etc.
There are some Leftists that argue that everyone need be equal, but that s
Re: (Score:2)
In your "Household Corporation" concept the mistress and illegitimate son would receive nothing in the event there was no will
In other words, it performs no worse than the "marriage contract" does now, as when the married man dies now without a will, in all the states I know of, his married wife and legitimate son get everything, and his mistress gets a book deal.
Interesting... (Score:1)
Reading a bit or Corinthians last night I found something interesting, specifically on sexual immorality and judging. Paul mentions that he isn't too concerned about sexual immorality outside the church, as it isn't us, but God is who will judge their actions. Therefore, as Christians we probably ought not be too concerned for the actions of sexual immorality outside the church either, to the point that they do not affect us morally. We should protect our own, discerning of right and wrong, and seeking t
Re: (Score:1)
Mmm, I wouldn't be quite as, pardon the expression, "liberal", as the way you've expressed these things here. Ultimately my response to "don't judge me" is that I can't *judge*, per se, because:
1) I cannot ultimately send someone to their judgement, only God has that power, and
2) I'm commanded to love my enemies as my friends, and forgive others as I'd have forgiveness for myself.
But I can, as you mentioned, *discern* -- I've been blessed with a brain, and can understand much of what I t